Trial reportDeutsches Arzteblatt international2015
Willingness to participate in mammography screening: a randomized controlled questionnaire study of responses to two patient information leaflets with different factual content.
Trial report in Deutsches Arzteblatt international, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 7 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
17 citing papers in PubMed, 7 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 28 citations in OpenAlex.
- Patient preferences for breast cancer screening: a systematic review update to inform recommendations by the Canadian Task Force on Preventive Health Care.Systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Shared decision-making for supporting women's decisions about breast cancer screening.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Health Literacy Interventions in Cancer: a Systematic Review.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2021Pooled it
- Recommendations on screening for breast cancer in women aged 40-74 years who are not at increased risk for breast cancer.CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne · 2018Guideline
- Assessment of the effects of decision aids about breast cancer screening: a systematic review and meta-analysis.BMJ open · 2017Pooled it
- Decision aids for people facing health treatment or screening decisions.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Effect of an information leaflet on breast cancer screening participation: A cluster randomized controlled trial.BMC public health · 2021Trial
- Trial
- Informed Choice in the German Mammography Screening Program by Education and Migrant Status: Survey among First-Time Invitees.PloS one · 2015Trial
- Factors influencing intention to participate in breast cancer screening. An exploratory structural model.PloS one · 2023Article
- First Prospective Cross-Sectional Study on the Impact of Immigration Background and Education in Early Detection of Breast Cancer.Breast care (Basel, Switzerland) · 2021Article
- [Acceptance and Related Causes of Clinical Trials among Cancer Patients in China].Zhongguo fei ai za zhi = Chinese journal of lung cancer · 2020Article
- [Content of official addressed to women informative documents about breast cancer screening in Spain].Revista espanola de salud publica · 2018Article
- Subjective and Objective Cancer Screening Knowledge Among White- and Blue-Collar Chinese Midlife Adults.Journal of cancer education : the official journal of the American Association for Cancer Education · 2018Article
- Article
- [Cervical cancer in Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania. Tumor stage, histological tumor type, age and screening participation of 985 patients].Der Pathologe · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundFrom 2010 onward, a new leaflet about mammography screening for breast cancer, more informative than the preceding version, has been sent to women in Germany aged 50 to 69 with the invitation to undergo screening. The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of different informational content on the decision whether or not to be screened.
methodsIn a randomized and blinded design, 792 women aged 48 to 49 were sent either the old or the new leaflet. Questionnaires were sent together with the leaflets in order to assess the following: willingness to undergo mammography screening, knowledge, decisional confidence, personal experiences of breast cancer, and demographic data.
results370 (46.7%) of the questionnaires were returned, and 353 were evaluable. The two groups did not differ significantly in their willingness to be screened: 81.5% (95% confidence interval [CI] 75.8%-87.2%) versus 88.6% (95% CI 83.9%-91.3%, p = 0.060). A post-hoc analysis showed that women who reported having had personal experience of breast cancer (18.7%) were more willing to be screened if they were given the new leaflet, rather than the old one (interaction p = 0.014). The two groups did not differ in their knowledge about screening (p = 0.260). Women who received the old leaflet reported a higher decisional confidence (p = 0.017). The most commonly mentioned factors affecting the decision were experience of breast cancer in relatives and close acquaintances (26.5% of mentions) and a doctor's recommendation (48.2%). Leaflets (3.6%) and all other factors played only a secondary role.
conclusionThe greater or lesser informativeness of the leaflet affected neither the participants' knowledge of mammography screening nor their willingness to undergo it. The leaflet was not seen as an aid to decision-making. The best way to assure an informed decision about screening may be for the patient to discuss the matter personally with a qualified professional.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.